Mithra "destruction"
Offline http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Mithra-Christianity-Zoroastrianism.html
Got this from a christian. I don't know what to say about it.
- Login to post comments
Offline Aquinas wrote:triften wrote:Simply because Jesus did not write a book or take a photograph, does not mean he did not exist... that just silly.Aquinas,
Have you read Rook and Todangst's posts about the historicity of Jesus? If you have some contemporary historical evidence for Jesus, they'd love to hear about it.
-Triften
In other words...you've got nothing.
No actually I have plenty.
I am wondering why is my long post appear nearly blank? I am using firefox.
- Login to post comments
Offline This if from David Ulansey who is the premier expert in Mithraism.
"The cult known as the Mithraic mysteries, or Mithraism, was one of the most important--and certainly one of the most intriguing--of the religions that arose at about the same time as Chrstianity. It came into existence in the first century B.C.; Plutarch writes that the Cilician pirates were practicing Mithraic rites by 67 B.C. (The pirates, based in the province of Cilicia in Asia Manor, numbered about 20,000; at their height their operations extended over the entire Mediterranean Sea.) Mithraism reached its peak in the third century and finally succumbed to the expansion of Christianity in the late fourth century, about the time that the Western Roman Empire was falling."
The roman version predetaed xtianity. Sure the Persian version is not the same and it is much older but 67BC is still well before xtianity.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Aquinas wrote:triften wrote:Simply because Jesus did not write a book or take a photograph, does not mean he did not exist... that just silly.Aquinas,
Have you read Rook and Todangst's posts about the historicity of Jesus? If you have some contemporary historical evidence for Jesus, they'd love to hear about it.
-Triften
In other words...you've got nothing.
No actually I have plenty.
I am wondering why is my long post appear nearly blank? I am using firefox.
Did i miss a post? because i haven't seen anything yet
- Login to post comments
This is just a case of a xian asserting that xianity isn't based on mythology.
The xians always have odd answers when questioned about the striking similarities to the stories of previous gods.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Seems they are saying that they didnt borrow because it was to late in history that the ideas would have already been around by then. Then they say that we don't know any of the teachings. What basis does this have with historians? Do we know any of this with any kind of certianty?
I didn't quite get that idea - that it was "too late in history."
The documentary The God Who Wasn't There gives a good explanation of the myths that pre-dated Jesus and the theists' explanations. It's in conjunction with the interview with Dr. Alan Dundes.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
From what i got from it, it was saying that mithra was more taking from teh christians then the other way around. Then it went on to say that we really don't know the story of mithra and that like we are "filling" it in with the jesus story. At least from waht i read.
Things aren't always as they appear. While it is true that Mithraism predated Christianity, it predated Christianity in Persia. Christianity began in Judea, and Mithraism did not come into the Christian arena until after the Second century. By then, the Gospels had already been written as well as many of Paul's writings. Furthermore, the type of Mithraism in Rome at the time, while similar to Christianity was vastly different from the Persian Mithraism that ACTUALLY pre-dated Christianity. Considering now that Abrahamic religions, as opposed to many others at the time had a very low tolerance of heresy, and was indisputably opposed to syncretism, it is far more likely that Mithraism was influenced by Christianity rather than vice-versa.
Of course that's only if we play this little word game, my own study of these mythologies, and other sources I have seen seem to show that the type of wording used to justify these pseudo-similarities is dishonest and misleading. For instance, a mythist will normally tell say that Mithra was born of a virgin, and in a cave. While it is true Mithra had no earthly father, the claim is dishonest because according to the myth, Mithra was born out of rock, and left a cave behind. Furthermore Mithra was born as a full adult. Talk about a play on words.
Sources and suggested further reading:
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
http://www.summit.org/resource/essay/show_printable_essay.php?essay_id=29
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
The vast majority of historians accept the existence of Jesus as a historical fact, I doubt anyone is feelign threatened. If, however it can be demonstrated that such similarities exist, in previous myths to the historical account of Jesus Christ, I would follow my understanding that Jesus is a Jungian archetype, in order to prove Jesus is a myth and the Gospels are false, one would actually have to somehow discredit all the historical evidence, not merely demonstrate similarities.
(does that qualify as weird enough to make your list?)
Aquinas,
Have you read Rook and Todangst's posts about the historicity of Jesus? If you have some contemporary historical evidence for Jesus, they'd love to hear about it.
-Triften
Aquinas et al.,
So did figures such as Buddha outright reject Yahweh, his people & teachings and start their own religion?
Come on, let's be reasonable. Your argument fails in the greater worldview.
EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!
????
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people.
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
There were many trade routes between those two areas. Merchants regularly earned extra money by telling stories from their lands, and when they returned, they told stories of the land that they were in before. Therefore, Persian merchants travelling to Judea would have spread these stories to the Jews.
Regardless, you do know, as a good christian, that God is in fact a rock? Psalm 18:2.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
You don't say.
church apologists such as justin martyr seem not to have shared that view; rather, the running explanation for apparent syncretism is that satan duplicated the story in advance to confuse us.
JUNGIAN ARCHETYPE? So just in case your previous argument doesn't fly (it doesn't), obfuscate? My understanding is that jesus is a Freudian slip.
There is no historical evidence to discredit in the first place.
There are no theists on operating tables.
In other words...you've got nothing.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I hope it is not a problem, I responded to a number of people in my one post at the risk of people being confused. I felt it inappropriate to make post after post responding to each comment in an individual post.
So Buddha came up with his own ideas... that is his perogative is it not?
I fail to see why I should be challenged by this.Why is that bad? In my eyes it gives the account more credibility.
But I already made this point, the Persian mithraism was very different from the roman mithraism that came later... The Roman mithraism was like Christianity.
No that's exactly it which is why it became so similar.
[quoteRegardless, you do know, as a good christian, that God is in fact a rock? Psalm 18:2.
Oh please. That is taking the verse way out of context. This is what is called a psalm, and David is making a metaphor for a foundation, and some place solid it has nothing to do with the body of the prophesied messiah, nor is there any reason from the context to make that connection.
Justin was writing about middle of the second century it is possible in feeble grasps for credibility, these mystery cults were claiming to have been previous, either way, there is no evidence at all that this strange roman mithraism was in the Christian arena during or previous to the development of christianity, and all mithraism up to the second century is very very different from roman mithraism, so if any form of mithraism traveled from persia it would have been very unlike the Roman syncretised version.
That is not obfuscation. it is speculation. My own, although I am sure others have probably thought of the idea as well. It would make an interesting thesis. What's wrong with this? Am I suddenly not allowed to have independent thoughts?
The majority of historians would disagree with you... you may have to take it up with them.